08.26.13

KDE gives credibility to my recommendations to users, but the names do not

Summary: Fedora considers names for its next release and many are likely to make it seem like it doesn’t take itself seriously

HAVING USED many versions of Fedora over the years (rarely on a long-term basis such as years at a time) and installed it for others (more versions and more times than I can remember), I feel like I know enough about this project, which I’ve followed closely since its first release. I am not trying to have a cheap shot at Fedora. Red Hat was actually my first distro (before Fedora) and that’s how I was introduced to GNU/Linux.

Once upon a time release names were simple to remember and not controversial. Look at early names of Fedora releases.

Coverage about Fedora has increased somewhat in recent days, especially because of codename selection. Android has some tasty codenames and Ubuntu plays with animal names and the alphabet, so why not Fedora? Well, the two-word convention is being adopted again and some final candidates are awkward, to say the least.

Fedora continues to lead on innovation, or terms of freedom with compromise (thanks to Red Hat). Unlike counterparts, it has conferences (which Ubuntu no longer has, just virtual ones). Some hardware components come with Fedora preinstalled and sold over the shelf/bulk ordered (see below), so why not choose ‘professional’-sounding names? As one who covers news about GNU/Linux I must say that writing about a distribution called “cow” (“Spherical Cow”) is unlikely to attract new users. Help me out here, guys. I am trying to ‘recruit’ new users. I understand that Fedora wants to be fun and playful, but this is probably costing them more than they realise. █

You may have noticed I started out tweetin’ and bloggin’ up a storm, and then disappeared for a while. This is because, after attending some useful and interesting (and sometimes even both!) presentations for a couple of days, I discovered the glory and magnificence that is Badges.

Eric (a fellow Fedora board member) has a post describing his vision for what Fedora as an end goal should look like. It’s essentially an assertion that since we have no idea who our users are or what they want, we should offer them everything on an equal footing.

What Else is New

The GNOME Board of Directors works for IBM and/or Microsoft at GitHub; it’s not entirely surprising that despite opposition from some GNOME developers the head of the GNOME Foundation, preceded by people who have since defected to Microsoft, described Dr. Richard Stallman as “reprehensible” and called for him to step down (from his very own thing, never mind the “G” in GNOME standing for GNU)

Principled, opinionated, self-governing individuals aren't any good for corporations looking to not only use their projects but to totally control those projects (copyleft licences such as GPL already make that hard enough for them, so it takes more time for legal 'hacks' such as software patents, "clown computing" and GitHub)

Certain groups that claim to represent the values of "Open Source" are in fact promoting the interests of Microsoft, GitHub etc. (i.e. monopoly or "open" as in a bunch of monopolies like Facebook and Microsoft sharing code snippets/resources over GitHub)

Torvalds and others who are middle-aged (or older) males are often torpedoed using weakly-backed allegations (or insinuations/innuendo) of sexism; that does not seem to matter and won't matter when they treat men the same (or worse)

Linus Torvalds was not fully canceled; nor was Richard Stallman, who's still heading the GNU Project (under conditions specified by those looking to oust him; people who code for Microsoft GitHub and many IBM employees)

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar

Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well

The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday

One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)

The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere

Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)

The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits

After contributing to the cancellation of Richard Stallman (RMS) based on some falsehoods perpetuated in the media we're seeing the sort of thing one might expect from IBM (more so now that it totally controls Fedora and RHEL)